State of Bihar v. PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan

8 SCC 655Reported decision2010#7079 most cited

What is State of Bihar v. PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan authority for?

A sanction order is not vitiated if all relevant materials were placed before the approving authority, even if the order doesn't show independent perusal or reasons, due to the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State of Bihar v PP Sharma · State of MP v Harishankar Bhagwan · sanction order · presumption · Section 114(e) Evidence Act · relevant material · perusal · vitiated sanction · approval

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 132Section 142(2A)Section 153CSection 131Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 114section 255(4)sanction under section 151section 136section 144asection 43(3)section 193section 196section 90asection 153a(1)(b)section 37b

Judgments citing State of Bihar v. PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan

Anuj Nagpal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 14, Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 524/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. AkashOjha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…al No. 4394 of 2015 [para 12] and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd. In ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR1991 SC 1260, State of MP vsHarishankarBhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. IshwarPirajiKalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the P a g e | 10 ITA Nos. 463 to 465, 467, 523 & 524, 457/Del/2022 A…

Anuj Nagpal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle -14, Delhi

ITA 523/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. AkashOjha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…al No. 4394 of 2015 [para 12] and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd. In ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR1991 SC 1260, State of MP vsHarishankarBhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. IshwarPirajiKalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the Page | 10 ITA Nos. 463 to 465, 467, 523 & 524, 457/Del/2022 AnuN…

Anuj Nagpal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 14, Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 467/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. AkashOjha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…al No. 4394 of 2015 [para 12] and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd. In ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR1991 SC 1260, State of MP vsHarishankarBhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. IshwarPirajiKalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the P a g e | 10 ITA Nos. 463 to 465, 467, 523 & 524, 457/Del/2022 A…

Anu Nagpal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle 14, Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 465/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. AkashOjha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…al No. 4394 of 2015 [para 12] and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd. In ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR1991 SC 1260, State of MP vsHarishankarBhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. IshwarPirajiKalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the P a g e | 10 ITA Nos. 463 to 465, 467, 523 & 524, 457/Del/2022 A…

Anu Nagpal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 463/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. AkashOjha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…al No. 4394 of 2015 [para 12] and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd. In ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR1991 SC 1260, State of MP vsHarishankarBhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. IshwarPirajiKalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the P a g e | 10 ITA Nos. 463 to 465, 467, 523 & 524, 457/Del/2022 A…

Abheek Nagpal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

ITA 457/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. AkashOjha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. PoojaSwaroop, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…al No. 4394 of 2015 [para 12] and Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Pratibha Pipes & Structural Ltd. In ITA No.3874/Mum/2015. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR1991 SC 1260, State of MP vsHarishankarBhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. IshwarPirajiKalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the Page | 10 ITA Nos. 463 to 465, 467, 523 & 524, 457/Del/2022 AnuN…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1596/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…in the present case, the onus is on the assessee to rebut that the Addl. CIT while approving the case had not applied his mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the statutory presumption under section 114(e) of the Indian Evide…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are

ITA 1536/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…in the present case, the onus is on the assessee to rebut that the Addl. CIT while approving the case had not applied his mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the statutory presumption under section 114(e) of the Indian Evide…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai vs. Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1529/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…in the present case, the onus is on the assessee to rebut that the Addl. CIT while approving the case had not applied his mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the statutory presumption under section 114(e) of the Indian Evide…

Periyasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…in the present case, the onus is on the assessee to rebut that the Addl. CIT while approving the case had not applied his mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the statutory presumption under section 114(e) of the Indian Evide…

Periasamy Anbunathan, Karur vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1488/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.J.K. Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Ms.E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

…in the present case, the onus is on the assessee to rebut that the Addl. CIT while approving the case had not applied his mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the statutory presumption under section 114(e) of the Indian Evide…

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

…in the present case, the onus is on the assessee to rebut that the Addl. CIT while approving the case had not applied his mind. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of State of Bihar vs PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan (2010) 8 SCC 655, CS Krishnamurthy vs State of Karnataka AIR 2005 SC 2790 and State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri AIR 1996 SC 722 has held that even in cases where the sanction order does not demonstrate the independent perusal of material and does not carry recital of reasons in view of the statutory presumption under section 114(e) of the Indian Evide…

Dheeraj Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6159/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…1 ITA Nos. 6158, 6159, 6160, 6214, 6215 & 6216/Del/2018 Dheeraj Chaudhary THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6158 to 6160/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 6214 to 6216/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15) Shri Dheeraj Chaudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner Flat No.1A Empire Estate of Income Tax, CC-8 Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi New Delhi - 110030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AASPK9267B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ruches…

Vanshika Motors (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6214/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…1 ITA Nos. 6158, 6159, 6160, 6214, 6215 & 6216/Del/2018 Dheeraj Chaudhary THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6158 to 6160/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 6214 to 6216/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15) Shri Dheeraj Chaudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner Flat No.1A Empire Estate of Income Tax, CC-8 Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi New Delhi - 110030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AASPK9267B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ruches…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6215/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 274

…1 ITA Nos. 6158, 6159, 6160, 6214, 6215 & 6216/Del/2018 Dheeraj Chaudhary THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B” DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT (THIRD MEMBER), MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 6158 to 6160/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 6214 to 6216/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2014-15) Shri Dheeraj Chaudhary Vs. Assistant Commissioner Flat No.1A Empire Estate of Income Tax, CC-8 Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi New Delhi - 110030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AASPK9267B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Ruches…

The Commissioner of Income Tx-IV vs. Indraprastha Gas Ltd

ITA/67/2016HC Delhi27 Jan 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…4. 52. As held in the decisions reported as AIR 1973 SC 2609 DDA Vs. Durga Chand Kaushik, AIR 1989 SC 1834 Provash Chandra Dalui & Anr. Vs. Biswanath Banerjee & Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 1 State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Lalji Tandon (Dead) Through LRs. and (2015) 8 SCC 655 State of West RFA (OS) No.67/2016 Page 49 of 52 Bengal & Anr. vs. Calcutta Mineral Supply Co. & Anr. a renewal of a grant amounts to a fresh grant. Add thereon, the law declared in the decisions reported as AIR 1987 SC 1073 Ambica Quarry Works etc. v…

State of Bihar v. PP Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, State of MP vs Harishankar Bhagwan (8 SCC 655) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax